Redemption of stock appreciation rights Amount is income: Special Bench

Sudha Sharma appointed as Member of CBDT Rupee hits a high of 48.73 against Dollar Excise Officers caught burning official files in midight in Aligarh after Income Tax raids on Ponty Chadha SC cancels 122 licences issued by A Raja during his tenure as Telecom Minister Laxman Das is Officiating Chairman of CBDT Tariff Value for import of gold is 556 & for silver 1067 & for Brass Scrap 4078 & for poppy seeds 2205-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Fused Silica is classifiable under Tariff Item 32074000-Customs Circular No.3 Additional Commisssioner of Income Tax HA Siddiqui sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for accepting bribe of Rs 1 Lakh by CBI Court in Delhi Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 50.20 Per US Dollar & Rs 66 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 49.40 per US Dollar & Rs 64.40 per EURO HC upholds levy of service tax on booking of flats-The explanation which was inserted by the Finance Act of 2010 clearly brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction Authority for Advance Ruling rules super concentrates shall be classified as products of the chemical industry under heading 3824 90 90 of Customs Tariff Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Morpholine from China European Union & USA Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Geogrid/Geostrips/ Geostraps made of polyester or Glass fiber in all its forms from Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (Paid in Excess of Actual Margin of Dumping) Rules, 2012 notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.5 Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Amendment Rules, 2012-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.6 Safeguard duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem notified on import of Phthalic anhydride, falling under tariff item 2917 35 00-Customs SG Notification No.1 Customs duty on import of Gold, Silver, Cut & Polished Diamonds hiked Customs duty to be charged at the rate of 2 per cent of Tariff Value on gold and 6 per cent of Tariff Value on silver Tariff Value for import of gold & silver notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.3 Anti-dumping duty on imports ofSilk fabrics 20-100 gms per metre, falling under heading 5007 originating in, or exported from, China-CustomsTariff Notification No. 2 Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 ,originating in, or exported from, China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP-Customs TariffNotification No.3 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phosphoric Acid of allgrades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture/Fertilizer Grade) ,falling under tariff item 28092010, originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.4 Anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film , falling under Chapter 39 , originating in, or exported from, China-Customs TariffNotification No.5 Anti-dumping duty onimports of Saccharin, falling under Chapters 29, 30, 33 and 38 ,originating in, or exported from, China-Customs Tariff Notification No.7 Special Bench of ITAT rules the appellant is not entitled to set off carry forward business loss against the long term capital gain arising on sale of land used for the purpose business ITAT rules Long Term and Short Term gains / losses on sale of equity shares under Portfolio Management Scheme is business income and not Capital Gains HC rules the opinion of the AO may have been legally erroneous but this cannot be a ground for initiation of re-assessment proceedings Anti-dumping duty on ‘Caustic Soda’, originating in, or exported from, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, USA & France-Customs Tariff Notification No.1 Cost Accountants can issue Certificates for the purpose of refund of 4% CVD-Customs Circular No.1 Customs duty on import from ASEAN nations lowered- Customs Tariff Notification No.127 deeper tariff cut on import from Malaysia notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.128 deeper tariff cuts on import from Korea notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.123 deeper tariff cuts on import from Srilanka & Pakistan under SAFTA notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.125 Schedule of Rates for Service Tax Refund to Exporters notified in supersession of Notification No.17/2009-Service Tax Notification No. 52 Customs duty on import of several products from specified countries lowered-Customs Tariff Notification No.113 Anti-dumping duty on ‘Sodium Hydrosulphite (SHS)’, falling under headings 2831 and 2832 , originating in, or exported from, China PR- Customs Tariff Notification No.111 CBEC specifies documents required for Registration of ServiceTax Customs duty on import of 532 Products from Singapore lowered-many products exempted from duty-Customs Tariff Notification No. 106 Government allows Rebate of excise duty on export of goods to Nepal under ARE-1 Procedure w.e.f. 1st March 2012-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.24

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Redemption of stock appreciation rights Amount is income: Special Bench

AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Special Bench of ITAT vide a recent ruling AIT-2008-24-ITAT has decided the following significant issue:

“Whether or not the amount received by the assessee employee on redemption of stock appreciation rights constitutes income liable to tax in his hands, irrespective of the fact that no shares or stock are actually allowed to him and that the assessee does not have any rights to receive such shares and stock?”

Special Bench has ruled as under:

The amount received by the assessee on redemption of share appreciation rights, as we have noted earlier in this order, is nothing but a deferred wage contingent upon performance of the company’s shares in the market. The very preamble of the scheme, under which share redemption rights have been given to the assessee, also states that it is in the nature of deferred awards related to the increase in the price of the Common Stock of the Company. It is thus that the amount received on redemption of stock appreciation rights is in the nature of consideration for services rendered by the assessee. This amount is in the revenue nature because the consideration for the amount so received is the services rendered by the assessee. In our considered view, therefore, the amount received by the assessee on redemption of stock appreciation rights is in the nature of income.(Para 34)
As there is no dispute about the fact the assessee employer had a duty to deduct tax at source in respect of the entire amount taxable under the head ‘income from salaries’ and all the relevant facts were in the notice of the employer, the assessee is entitled to take into account the amount of tax deductible, though not actually deducted. (Para 58)
As regards assessee’s plea that the amount in question can only be taxed under the head ‘capital gains’ as the receipt is on account of transfer of a capital asset consisting of right to receive stock appreciation rights, we see no substance in the same for the simple reason that, as we have held earlier in this order and as the very preamble of Procter & Gamble (1983) Stock Plan itself states, the amount in question is in the nature of a fruit of employment related activity which is revenue receipt in nature, and it is only the quantification of this amount which is linked to a capital asset that is value of shares. The taxability is not respect of the stock appreciation right per se but the amount received as a fruit of employment which is mentioned by way of formula envisaged in the stock appreciation rights scheme.(Para 54)
The assessee was indeed liable to tax in respect of the amount of Rs. 4,79,13,851 received on redemption of stock appreciation rights. The taxability of this amount is under the head ‘income from salaries’ but the assessee’s plea that the amount in question is received from a person other than the de jure employer, even if it was to be accepted, would not have any material difference to the taxability per se, because, in such an event and following Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case Emil Webber’s case, this amount would have been taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’. (Para 55)

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2008-24-ITAT)

Related Story: